4. The parents, guardian, legal guardian or any other person of the child who is in front of the child in loco parentis. However, such notice is not required if the judge formally declares that the identity of the parent or guardian cannot reasonably be established. A biological father must be informed of the procedure if he or she is an approved father under Section 20-49.1, if the Biological Father is decided pursuant to § 20-49.8 or if he or she is suspected under Section 63.2-1202, or if he or she has registered with the Virginia Register of Biological Fathers pursuant to Section 7 (§ 63.2-1249 et seq.). An affidavit from the mother that the identity of the father cannot reasonably be established is sufficient evidence of that fact, unless the court has other evidence that would refute such an affidavit. Failure to register in the Virginia Biological Fathers Registry pursuant to 63.2.2 et seq. § 7 (§ 63.2-1249 et seq.) is considered proof that the identity of the father cannot reasonably be established. The hearing takes place and an order may be made even if a parent, guardian, legal guardian or person in loco parentis does not appear and is not represented by counsel, provided that the person has received personal or alternative service or the court considers that this person, after reasonable effort or in the case of a person, which is without the Commonwealth, cannot be found. The person cannot be located or his or her mailing address cannot be determined with reasonable effort. However, if an application for approval of a permanent mandate contract that provides for the termination of all parental rights and obligations with respect to the child is made, a summons to appear will be served on the parent or parents and on the other parties referred to in § 16.1-263. The summons or notice of hearing clearly states the consequences of terminating the remaining parental rights.
Delivery is made in accordance with § 16.1-264.1. Must be submitted within a reasonable time, but no later than 89 days after the signing of a mandate contract of less than 90 days, if the child is not returned to the person entrusted to him within this period; D. At the end of the hearing, the court decides, on the basis of a preponderance of evidence, whether the approval of the mandate agreement is in the best interests of the child. However, if the application seeks approval of a permanent mandate contract providing for the termination of all parental rights and obligations towards the child, the court must determine, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, whether the termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. If the court makes one of these findings, it may make one of the orders admissible in a case where an abused or neglected child is affected in accordance with § 16.1-278.2. Such an order for the transfer of custody of the child must be made in accordance with the provisions of subdivision A5 of section 16.1-278.2 and is subject to the provisions of subdivision D1. The order contains, inter alia, the following conclusions: (i) that there is no less radical alternative to granting the requested exemption; and (ii) reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the removal and that continued placement in the home would be contrary to the best interests of the child if the order transfers custody of the child to a local social welfare authority. At any time after the transfer of custody of the child under this section, a biological parent or the child`s parents and the parent(s) may enter into a written post-adoption contact and communication agreement in accordance with the provisions of § 16.1-283.1 and section 1.1 (§ 63.2-1220.2 et seq.) of chapter 12 of title 63.2. The court does not require a written agreement of contact and communication after adoption as a condition for registering an order in a case involving the child.